Ok, here’s the thing

Ok, here’s the thing. You set up a website with a place for responses. Your website takes a clearly mocking tone toward religion in general. You gather a bunch of members who agree with you and assert your scientific superiority. All that’s fine. Indeed, I’d say its even American. The thing that disturbs me is when people begin to question the RIGHT of people to “insult us, or. . . pray for us.”

That right is recorded somewhere in some dusty piece of paper – let me think . . . where could it be –
that has worked out well for us all for quite a while.

The thing that turns me off, though, and weakens your position most, is that most of you are just mean. I wouldn’t want just to hang out with you at a bar or anywhere else, because your arguments primarily seem to consist of making fun of people. Indeed, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is pretty much one big Ad Hominem argument. It adds nothing to a discussion of the validity of faith, because it is not about faith. (The person who writes that they “believe” in Atheism I’ll give a pass to on this comment.)

Even if Katie is condescending, your responses are more so. It is the lack of love that makes me question your entire premise. Indeed, your definition of hate is awfully broad. It sounds, how shall I put it, downright religious. Even if we live in a Foucaldian world in which our choices are driven by zeitgeist and social darwinism, I personally am going to choose to reject that. I will defiantly assert that even in that world, Faith is still relevant (and if you read his last interviews, I think Michel might agree).

Even if God were not true, I think I’ll still take Katie, who clearly has concern for you (even if you think it is misguided) over you guys who are interested in intellectually crushing her. Just because you have a right to speak doesn’t mean that Katie shouldn’t, and you certainly “have no right” to expect most people who respond to like you if you are going to beat on them.

Take a real philosophical position that can be debated and we’ll talk. Claiming that principles are “generally accepted” won’t do it, and don’t even begin to bring “peer review” in to support claims of truth, because “peer review”, even at its best, isn’t about truth – it’s about methodology and rhetoric.

Otherwise, quit wasting my time.

P.S. Has anyone here actually honestly asked God whether He exists? Just curious as to whether this is an intellectually honest forum or an ideologically rigid one.

204 Responses to “Ok, here’s the thing”

Well yes, I guess we are sort of mean… I mean, making people think about how their entire upbringing in terms of religion was total bullshit? oh my FSM so mean. Know what? I don’t care. as far as I know you are a comment-bot on some nerdy guy’s computer. You may not even exist. Like god and FSM.

“Take a real philosophical position that can be debated and we’ll talk. Claiming that principles are “generally accepted” won’t do it, and don’t even begin to bring “peer review” in to support claims of truth, because “peer review”, even at its best, isn’t about truth – it’s about methodology and rhetoric.”

Methodology is part of having something reviewed by one’s peers. If the methodology is bad, how can you expect to find a correct answer? Sometimes answers are not easy to find and so one study isn’t going to give you THE truth or THE answer, so multiple studies will have to be done to eliminate bad theories or wrong answers. These can also inspire others in the field (also one’s peers) to ask new questions and continue the research. I’m not sure why you wouldn’t want research involved to support any given argument. If you have a theory that is not supported by evidence, the perhaps you need to question your theory.

You can’t prove faith and what validates your faith is likely different from someone else’s. You can’t tell me that what I have faith in isn’t valid. You can tell me that I’m going to hell simply because I’m not praying to God the same way you do. I’m not going to run out and convert to whatever Protestant sect you deem acceptable, just because you’re not validating my Catholic faith.

By the way, I just asked God if he exists, and I didn’t get anything back. No lighning, locusts, strange voices, etc. And if God made me in his image, then that means that “he’s” actually a hermaphrodite.

When I was a Christian, I regularly asked God whether or not he existed. I never received a response. For a while, I was a Wiccan, and I regularly asked the Goddess whether or not she existed. I was always hoping for a response, some sort of tiny symbol that would prove to me her existence. I never received a response.
This was all when I was a child and a teenager. As an adult, I don’t ask anymore because the magic of it all is gone. I have no religion. I don’t believe that any religion is right. And I will fight to keep religious propaganda out of schools. It is propaganda, by the way. There’s no evidence to support any religion as being true. It’s all about what you’ve been told by someone who was told by someone who was told by someone who was told by someone who read in a book that was written by someone who was told… etc. And in no way should that be taught in schools as a viable theory for how humans came to be.
On the other end, I would much rather students be taught by someone who was told by a professor who read/wrote an article in a scientific journal that was reviewed by multiple scientists and it’s results tested for consistency.
If you believe that a book (written by a human) is more likely to contain the one, true answer than those tests, then I pity you. Yes, that is with a condescending tone.

Considering most of you are dodging Bobby’s main points, I’d say he has the upper hand, and speaking as a philosophy major, you pale in comparison to his arguments. He points out your logical fallacies and all you can do is continue in a discussion about how theism is wrong. He has stated no side to theism or atheism, and in your radical rambling you have merely inferred that he has because I assume your logic works like this: “If he doesn’t agree with us, he must be one of them.”

Whats funny is he was even open minded enough to accept the notion of this world working without a metaphysical/spiritual existence and validated most of your points. Yet, most of you, probably too stupid to realize, have been proving him correct with each word you type. Ad hominem almost always evolves into ad baculum because those who exhibit these fallacies were never in a position to debate in the first place. I can’t help but smile as I read the responses, and I truly want to keep as open a mind as possible to see everyone else’s point, but when no one has a real point, how can I?

As a biologist, the true intentions of the CoFSM bring a feeling of light hearted vindication. The teaching of creationism, and its modern counterpart, intelligent design, in schools is not only an affront to evidence-based science and the scientific method, but it is a direct attack on all other forms of religion. I dont know which is more offensive. That is the point of this website, to show the discontinuity and bias exhibited by the Christian movement to weasel their teachings into the minds of our youth. The methods they employ, to increase the validity of their beliefs by categorizing them as a science, are underhanded as well as somewhat blasphemous. The number of atheists and agnostics is growing, no matter what the stats say, and in order to increase their attendance these churches have begun to understand that in this (somewhat more) enlightened age they must employ tactics other than simply eliciting fear and intimidation. This attempt, to prove the unprovable, to push a belief as a science, is so mind-numbingly inane and counter to their teachings it would be laughable, if it weren’t so potentially detrimental to the evolution of our society.
To the point, as atheists and agnostics, as pastafarians, we have a responsibility to show that we are better than those standing on their pseudo-moral high ground. I think it is fine to point out the hypocrisy of individuals who attack us (like many of the idiots who post hate mail here), however to attack religion as a whole, or specific religions, is reaching beyond our purpose and ends up setting us back in the long run. I have ethics and morals, even without the belief of a god, or the punishment which one would bring. I am a good person, as many atheists are, on my own contention. Let us stay that way and show the world how full and amazing life is when you don’t feel the need to sacrifice for the possibility of a subsequent one.
Keep the replies civil, intelligent, and respectful, whether or not they are deserving of such treatment. Use your knowledge and intelligence to combat their bigotry and hypocrisy. We have the right to believe anything we want, let each man decide for himself what he will. Never stop learning, or teaching, in this we can win the battle which we now face (ultimately concerning separation of church and state) and continue to teach our youth the wonders of empirical, fact based, science. The universe is amazing, much more so than any book, bible, faith, or sermon, teach this to your children and there will be no contest. Truth will always win.

“P.S. Has anyone here actually honestly asked God whether He exists? Just curious as to whether this is an intellectually honest forum or an ideologically rigid one.”

You can ask your god anything you want. He will not answer because he is not real. If he does answer, go ahead and record it. Show some physical evidence of his existence. Maybe then people would take your religion more seriously.